guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Guild Wars Factions Global Free-for-All PvP Weekend
Mirror FAQ I don't think ANet would mind if we mirror their FAQ over here, would they? -- 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) :Added (wikified). Now somebody write a short article about account and how to create a new one, to fill in all the blank links. -- 12:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC) ::Can we remove the FAQ? We should just link to their faq, why do we have it copied here? If they change their faq or add to it, our users won't know because they will be reading an outdated version. --Karlos 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC) :::We can link to their front page (www.guildwars.com) where the FAQ is, but it will be off the bottom of the screen and people might miss it. (You laugh thinking, "How can people be so dumb as to miss it?" But I've already been asked by 2 people about where we found the information on the PvP weekend since Friday when the info went up on the GW site.) --Rainith 17:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) ::::There is one big reason to mirror the FAQ on GuildWiki: Our version is wikified! :) Yes, there is small a risk that ANet may change their version, but I think we can handle that. We'll have an eye on them, as usual. I'll check their FAQ for changes at least daily. -- 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC) :::::I don't like it as a precedent. I don't like us copying content verbatim from other sites when there is the option of linking to it. But if they have poor archiving for the article that it might be missed then this is a good move. --Karlos 05:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::Another precedent is already there: Game updates -- 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC) :::::::Apples and Oranges: :::::::#We need to put post game updates to be an official fansite. :::::::#Game updates cannot be changed, so there's no risk to data persistence. :::::::#I am the one who devised commentary on Game Updates because I believe we should not just list them. :::::::#Game Updates are meaningful in the greater context of the wiki, for articles that reference that XYZ henchment were introduced in X update and removed in Y update. The FAQ will be useless in exactly 1 week. :::::::--Karlos 15:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Po-tay-to and po-tah-to: ::::::::#It doesn't look like we'll ever be an official fansite anyway, despite our success, so who cares. j/k ;) ::::::::#I believe there have been cases where the text of a game update has been revised post-release for clarity. Not 100% sure. ::::::::#We can also add comments to the FAQ, like I have already done for the Tyria changes. ::::::::#Yes, the FAQ will be useless in 1 week. But the fact that it will be up for only 1 week also makes it very easy to monitor. ::::::::The key point for me is that a wikified and commented version of the FAQ will help our users better than the original. That should be reason enough to mirror it. -- 15:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::: Why are we hotlinking that image? 195.137.4.228 10:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Henchmen in update This relates to all the new PvP henchmen, so I placed it here: It states in the article that they replace Alesia/Reyna/Orion/Stefan.. but those characters were never in the PvP. It was always 'Healer Henchman' etc. If the 'Healer Henchman' was identical to Alesia, I could see some sense in saying the Zenshin replaced them, but only if the Zenshin henchmen are functionally different from the PvP henchmen (and therefore the PvE named henchmen). Did that make any sense? Shandy 08:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC) :Hmmmm. The question is whether ANet wanted to imply that the healer henchman was indeed Alesia. But we should check that by carefully reading the texts of Alesia, Stefan, Reyna and Orion. --Xeeron 11:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ::True that the healing henchman was simply called 'Healer Henchman' in PvP (probably for easy identification during matches). Whether or not she is Alesia, I'm not sure. Talking to Alesia, Stefan, Reyna, and Orion doesn't help much as they mostly say they wish the Zaishen would let them help, etc. I included that the Zaishen henchman replaced the previous tombs henchman because they certainly do take the place of them. In comparision, the Mad Kings Guard and the Snowmen henchmen were made available as an option to the side for use in PvE, as opposed to here in Tombs, where you must use the Zaishen if you want henchmen. --TheSpectator 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC) :::Technically, they were never called Alesia and Stefan, but I think that ANet placing the "original" henchment that were replaced and naming them Alesia, Stefan, ..., etc means that they perceive them as being the same. Which, to me, also justifies having the fighter Henchman article just be a redirect to Stefan's and then putting a note in Stefan's article saying that he is called so and so in Tombs. This is something I was against in the past, but seeing ANet name them so is a deciding thing for me. --Karlos 15:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)